Ummm....no. What matters is what can be consistently reproduced in a controlled setting (I mean "controlled" from a perspective of the scientific method, in case any anti-mma "the UFC is a controlled environment, not like teh str33t" people are reading this). Personal anecdotes do not matter, as they are heavily susceptible to personal feelings, selection bias, and lack of any controls in the experiment.

Psychology is just a branch of philosophy that likes to speak in psuedo-scientific terms.

I think behavioural psych would be a soft science. You can put pigeons in a Skinner box and apply rewards/punishments for their behaviour and come up with a repeatable range of statistics, given a large enough sample. It's just not a hard science because a single deviation doesn't disprove a theory, as it would in chemistry or physics.

I, for one, would like to put peng in a box with a wire wrapped around his pubic bone. A mild shock when he's naughty (omg internal energeez!!!! teh body electric!!). Every now and then throw him a ho-cake for good behaviour.

Yeah, that's why they pay me the big bucks. Because I understand all this "science" stuff. :cool:

Now, if only getting paid the big bucks didn't involve leaving myself no time or energy to get back into serious training. (Working out a couple times a month for fun does not count, in my book.) :icon_sad:

The irony is that the other 90% is crap by even philosophy standards due to lack of logic.

Much like peng: They have a theory, then they make a study to affirm their theory. If they don't affirm their theory they make new studies untill they do affirm their theory. I've read through tons of worthless literature with horribly designed studies that only barely show evidence for their conclusion. Ugh.. I hate the rest of my field...

Now if only we could get that clown Kilik to show up. For the rest of you, that guy would last about an hour before various posters would hunt him down and/or the Admins would send him to Trollshido so fast a cliche would happen.

He likes to spam boards with various pseudoscientific crap--like "Qi Gong is Prehistoric!" My favorite was one where he claimed a video of an "invincible Chi Master" who could not be knocked down if he stood on one-foot and held a cup of tea. I wish I was making it up.

Right, for the rest, way back the books I recommended to Peng are very good for explaining why investigators have to apply a scientific method. There are different levels of claim here.